“If You Were Born Via Caesarian Section You Can’t Be President”

Rush Limbaugh read a letter titled “More Modern Way of Living” on “The Rush Limbaugh Show” February 15, 2013. The letter was originally published in the Carteret County News-Times on January 23rd.

The letter is real. It was sighed, “A Proud Democrat.” But there’s some question as to whether it was sent in by a conservative making fun of liberals or by a die-hard, low-information voter. Snopes thinks it’s a parody. We don’t know because there is no name attached to it.

While I think Snopes is right, I’d be willing to bet that a lot of low-information voters would agree with every part of it.

One paragraph caught my attention.

“The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.”

A C-section is a Caesarian section. A woman who delivers a baby via C-section does not deliver the baby “naturally.” Anyone born this way would not qualify for the constitutional requirement to be “naturally born.” This is called equivocation: giving equal meaning to a word when the word requires two or more meanings. It’s a common mistake that liberals purposefully make all the time. Like the line in Led Zepplin's "Stairway to Heaven":

"There's a sign on the wall but she wants to be sure 'Cause you know sometimes words have two meanings."

There are enough ignorant people out there who would believe this argument. I’d love to test it. I know I’m right.

But there’s another point to be made. The implication of the letter writer (spoofing real low-information voters) is that the Constitution does not fit the definition of “modern.” The constitutional framers were smart men, not like Democrat Congressman Hank Johnson from Georgia who claimed that too many people on the island of Guam would tip it over. “My fear,” Johnson said to Admiral Robert Willard, the commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, “is that the whole island will become so overly populated that it will tip over and capsize.” Johnson was overwhelmingly reelected.

Again, “natural-born citizen” doesn’t have anything to do with how a person was born but where he was born and who were his parents.

Our founders were quite aware of Caesarian births. They were students of Roman government and history. The word “Caesarian” has the word “Caesar” in it. (Some etymologists believe that the word comes from the verb caedere, to cut.) It was often said that Caesar was born via a C-section, although this has been disputed. The procedure, however, was known and practiced thousands of years ago.

“Pliny the Elder refers to a certain Julius Caesar (not the famous statesman, but a remote ancestor of his) as ab utero caeso, ‘cut from the womb,’ a godly attribute comparable to rumours about the birth of Alexander the Great. This and Caesar’s name may have led to a false etymological connection with the ancient monarch. Notably, the Oxford English Dictionary does not credit a derivation from ‘caedere,’ and defines Caesarean birth as ‘the delivery of a child by cutting through the walls of the abdomen when delivery cannot take place in the natural way, as was done in the case of Julius Cæsar.’”

Notice the phrase “natural way.” The first modern successful Caesarian delivery was done in 1881.

It’s no wonder with the ignorance that floats about that low-information voters believe the constitutional phrase “general welfare” means wealth confiscation and wealth distribution, when it meant nothing of the sort.

So the next time you come across one of these spoof letters, don’t be too quick to dismiss it. There’s a great deal of truth in a parody.

Dimocraps will only do what it takes to make the truly illegitimate run for office, while denying the same right to any legitimate one who may oppose them.

JamesMaxwell

Really superb trolling ICOYAR, that's sure to rile some people up.

ezekiel22

James I am surprised you should be able to do better. Oh well catch you on the rebound.

http://www.facebook.com/sheffield.swearingen.5 Sheffield Swearingen

Demochimps will lie and follow this Obama cat to hell

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100004246691037 Paul Thomas

You forgot the word turd after cat!

cae973

There is nothing more amazing then human stupidity. But the fact remains that a natural born citizen is a child whose parents are citizens so obama is not a natural born citizen. His father was not a citizen so regardless of where obama was born he is ineligible to hold the office of the presidency!

JamesMaxwell

"His father was not a citizen so regardless of where obama was born he is ineligible to hold the office of the presidency!"

Nice trolling cae973.

Steven

Second most common troll tactic: Accusing anyone you disagree with of trolling.

maryflaur

He was not born in this country.

daves

I will give you $20 if you can prove that natural born means both your parents have to be citizens.

BigUgly666

Here's a good start, daves, do a search on "natural born citizen law of nations" for the full text.

==========================

What is a natural born citizen? Where did the framers come up with this term? Where was it used before? So many questions, and the answers are right there if anyone wishes to search out the truth.

The term Natural born Citizen appears in our Constitution, in Article 1, Section 2, with these words, “No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty five years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Before the Constitution the closest reference we have to Natural Born Citizen is from the legal treatise “the Law of Nations,” written by Emerich de Vattel in 1758. In book one chapter 19,

§ 212. Of the citizens and natives.

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

"Please note that the correct title of Vattel's Book I, Chapter 19, section 212, is “Of the citizens and naturals”. It is not “Of citizens and natives” as it was originally translated into English. While other translation errors were corrected in reprints, that 1759 translation error was never corrected in reprints. The error was made by translators in London operating under English law, and was mis-translated in error, or was possibly translated to suit their needs to convey a different meaning to Vattel to the English only reader. In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”. For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective. In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence. He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country. Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word. You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country. Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here in the original French if you have any doubts. Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do. Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country. Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate.".Her

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

Nicely and completely stated.

daves

The Constitution does not explain the meaning of “natural born”.

James Madison In a speech before the House of Representatives in May 1789, James Madison said:

It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States.[9]

Black's Law Dictionary (9th Edition) defines 'Natural Born Citizen' as "A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government".

In an 1829 treatise on the U.S. Constitution, William Rawle wrote that "every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

Since the Constitution does not specify what the requirements are to be a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen", the majority adopted the common law of England:

The court ruled:

It thus clearly appears that by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country, and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, and the jurisdiction of the English sovereign; and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject, unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign state, or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. III. The same rule was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.

Lynch v. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844):[25] This opinion from a New York court extensively reviewed the issue of natural born citizenship, and was later cited by the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President. "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," &c . The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.

Moreover, the absence of any avowal or expression in the constitution, of a design to affect the existing law of the country on this subject, is conclusive against the existence of such design. It is inconceivable that the representatives of the thirteen sovereign states, assembled in convention for the purpose of framing a confederation and union for national purposes, should have intended to subvert the long established rule of law governing their constituents on a question of such great moment to them all, without solemnly providing for the change in the constitution; still more that they should have come to that conclusion without even once declaring their object. And what is true of the delegates in the convention, is equally applicable to the designs of the states, and of the people of the states, in ratifying and adopting the results of their labors.

MARYANN33

The reason it is not more clearly defined is that they had brains and saw no need for further explanation...No one could imagine the untold numbers of fools in this country....Dumbing down and giving away has worked.

http://thedoctorwhocurescancer.com TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

It is specious to argue that the Constitution doesn't define what "natural born" means. The document is not a dictionary and it does not define any term contained within.

Trying to equate British common law with the Constitution in this case when it comes to citizens vs. "subjects" is a huge mistake.

A king greedily wants to create as many subjects as he can as it gives him power over more people.

The Constitution and citizenship are a wholly different idea. The Constitution LIMITS government control. We are not "subject" to a king's whims.

The Constitution is to be interpreted based on the ideas of the Framers intended. Not even Black's law from 1829 is a substitute for the original intent. It is evident that the term came from Vattel and that people like Franklin and Jefferson owned copies of his book. It was Carroll I believe who wrote to Washington and specifically argued for the need not to have split loyalties at birth as the reason for the natural born requirement. It was then that natural was included as one of the requirements.

Note that the Constitution does not require Senators nor Congresspersons to be "natural" born. Only the president must meet that higher requirement.

It is obvious that anyone born with split loyalties such as Obama, Rubio or Jindal are not eligible for the office.

freedixie

The 14th Amendment does not confer “natural born citizen” status anywhere in its text. It simply states that a person born in the United States is a “Citizen”, and only if he is “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.” The most overlooked words in that section are: “…or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution…” You must recall that most, if not all, of the framers of the Constitution were, at birth, born as British subjects. Stop and think about that. The chosen wording of the Framers here makes it clear that they had drawn a distinction between themselves – persons born subject to British jurisdiction – and “natural born citizens” who would not be born subject to British jurisdiction or any other jurisdiction other than the United States. And so the Framers grandfathered themselves into the Constitution as being eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause only pertains to any person who was a Citizen… at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution. Obama was definitely not a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and so he is not grandfathered in. The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) The first was decided in A.D. 1814, at the beginning of the republic, by men who were intimately associated with the American Revolution. In that year the following men sat on the Supreme Court: Bushrod Washington, (b. June 5, 1762 — d. Nov. 26, 1829), served Feb. 4, 1799 til Nov. 26, 1829. John Marshall (b. Sept. 24, 1755 — d. July 6, 1835), served Feb. 4, 1891 til July 6, 1835. William Johnson (b. Dec. 27, 1771 — d. Aug. 4, 1834), served May 7, 1804, til Aug. 4, 1834. Henry Brockholst Livingston (b. Nov. 25, 1757 — d. Mar. 18, 1823), served Jan. 20, 1807 til March 18, 1823 Thomas Todd (b. Jan. 23, 1765 — d. Feb. 7, 1826), served May 4, 1807 til Feb. 7, 1826. Gabriel Duvall (b. Dec. 6, 1752 — d. Mar. 6, 1844), served Nov. 23, 1811 til Jany 14, 1835. Joseph Story (b. Sept. 18, 1779 — d. Sept. 10, 1845), served Feb. 3, 1812 til Sept. 10, 1845 Nearly all these men either participated in the American Revolution, or their fathers did. Joseph Story’s father took part in the original Boston Tea Party. Thomas Todd served 6 months in the army against the British; and participated in 5 Constitutional Conventions from 1784-1792. During the Revolutionary War, Henry Brockholst Livingston was a Lieutenant Colonel in the New York Line and an aide-de-camp to General Benedict Arnold, before the latter’s defection to the British. William Johnson’s father, mother, and elder brother were revolutionaries, who served as statesman, rebel, or nurse/assistant to the line troops, respectively. John Marshall was First Lieutenant of the Culpeper Minutemen of Virginia, and then Lieutenant in the Eleventh Virginian Continental Regiment, and a personal friend of General George Washington; and debated for ratification of the U.S. Constitution by the Virginian General Assembly. Bushrod Washington was George Washington’s nephew and heir. Being witnesses and heirs of the Revolution, they understood what the Framers of the Constitution had intended. The Venus case regarded the question whether the cargo of a merchantman, named the Venus, belonging to an American citizen, and being shipped from British territory to America during the War of 1812, could be seized and taken as a prize by an American privateer. But what the case said about citizenship, is what matters here. WHAT THE VENUS CASE SAYS ON CITIZENSHIP In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling: Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says: “The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. “The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it… Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) In this case, Wong Kim Ark, the son of 2 resident Chinese aliens, claimed U.S. Citizenship and was vindicated by the court on the basis of the 14th Amendment. In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett: At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.” CONCLUSION Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”. Hence every U.S. Citizen must accept this definition or categorical designation, and fulfill his constitutional duties accordingly. No member of Congress, no judge of the Federal Judiciary, no elected or appointed official in Federal or State government has the right to use any other definition; and if he does, he is acting unlawfully, because unconstitutionally.

Leonard Legg

As explained by Maryann and the doctor, definitions were not considered necessary in the Constitution, as anyone of their station in those days had common sense unlike today. when they stated the other requirements and then differentiated that a president required a different requirement it is inferred and understood as everyone of that day understood the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. Only a liberal of today can justify the stupidity by twisting and manipulating words to mean other than they really do. That is one of the main weapons of liberals, distortion of words meanings, IE. it depends on what the meaning of is, is. How stupid can an educated man really be?

notislam

There is nothing hard to understand about this except if you are a liberal

(LIBERALISM IS A MENTAL DISORDER).

http://www.facebook.com/philip.turet Philip Turet

Very interesting. Fascinating and deep discussion, thank you. Some questions, did Vattel discuss the situation where the father abandons the family at a young age? Does he suppose that love of or loyalty to country is passed through the genome (a concept unknown in the 18th century), or through the influence of the de facto parent? That is, nature or nurture? And why just the father? Is that an 18th century assumption?

In this country we have had a checkered past when it comes to citizenship. Until the 13th Amendment, people with African descent, even freed people, were ineligible for citizenship. Native people (First Peoples) were also denied citizenship 1914.

BigUgly666

The major problem with Obama (Barry Soetoro) is not where he was born, or even whether his father was Barack Sr, or Frank Marshall Davis, but his ADOPTION by Lolo Soetoro. Adoption make the child the "natural born child of the adoptive parent". The original birth certificate is destroyed and a new one issued with the new name and the adoptive father as the "natural father". Since the child is then the "natural born child of the adoptive parent", all rights of the father are "naturally" those of the child - thus, Barack Hussein Obama ceased to exist, Barry Soetoro came into existence .... as an Indonesian citizen and a muslim by birth. No matter how you look at it - Obama is ineligible to the office and must be hanged for his crimes.

BigUgly666

When it comes to Obama, his place of birth and who his real father is, Obama Sr. or Frank Marshall Davis, are both irrelevant. Obama (Barry Soetoro) was adopted by Lolo Soetoro. Adoption makes the child the "natural born child of the adoptive parent" with all rights thereto. Thus, at the moment of Barry's adoption, Barack Hussein Obama ceased to exist - Barry Soetoro began to exist and became the "NATURAL BORN CHILD OF LOLO SOETORO, INDONESIAN CITIZEN AND MUSLIM BY BIRTH. The original birth certificate would have been destroyed and a replacement issued with the new name and the adoptive parent in the place of the natural parent. Obama never has been, nor will he ever be eligible to the Office of President - and must be hanged for his crimes against the Constitution and this nation.

In answer to your question - it matters not. Obama Sr. is listed on the fraudulent BC as "father" therefore he is and the Law of Nations still holds. If someone would just get Barry's "re-issued" BC, the Law of Nations would still hold and Obama/Soetoro must needs still be hanged.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

Pay up BigUgly666 proved it beyond any doubt.

edodaniel

To stall his likely doubts here is the rest of the story:

Supreme Court cases have been decided in which Vattel's widely accepted definition was used were as follow:

The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814) - Most all of the members of the court either participated in the Revolution or their fathers did so they were well acquainted with the founder's thoughts on the Constitution and the process by which it came into being. Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…

Next was Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830) - Justice Story, who gave the ruling, does not cite Vattel per se, but cites the principle of citizenship enshrined in his definition of a “natural born citizen”:

"Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country. Her citizenship, then, being prima facie established, and indeed this is admitted in the pleadings, has it ever been lost, or was it lost before the death of her father, so that the estate in question was, upon the descent cast, incapable of vesting in her? Upon the facts stated, it appears to us that it was not lost and that she was capable of taking it at the time of the descent cast."

Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875) was next and The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in that year, wrote the majority opinion, in which he stated:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents."

At NO TIME has the Court accepted a child of parents of mixed citizenship as anything more than a citizen with the same rights as a naturalized citizen of foreign extraction - Obama is, at best, simply a citizen but more likely holds dual citizenship of a British citizen courtesy of his father and Indonesian citizenship courtesy of his stepfather.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

I know for a fact that Indonesia has not until recently allowed dual citizenship. With the "British Protectorate of East Africa" which Kenya was know at the time of Obama's birth is problematic Old Europe which we get much of the basis of our law made that difference between citizen and alien in what they could do and were they could go. Both of you get 5/5

Victor

Deuteronomy 17:15...Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom Yahweh(yes, folks, Hebrew is the only inspired language as written) thy Elohim shall choose: one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over three: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother. p.s. Welcome to Adam's world...

And another ignorant comment by a liberal moron crazier than a syphilitic suicide bomber with mad-cow disease.

maryflaur

*My twin granddaughters were born by C.section. Does this mean some moron thinks they are not natural born citizens? I don't know about some people.*

edodaniel

Doesn't have to as public record shows that Vattel's book was widely used in the Constitutional Convention as well as throughout the debates for ratification and the further debates on the Bill of Rights. The definition of a natural born citizen was widely known and accepted and the founders didn't expect idiots enfranchised or not to question the definition which they clarified through the additional qualification "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" which pertained to the founders themselves who were not NATURAL BORN CITIZENS under the law although every one of them was indeed a CITIZEN.

maryflaur

*The way I understand it, anyone born in the United States is considered a "natural born citizen,"*

http://www.facebook.com/philip.turet Philip Turet

Since the 14th Amendment, yes! Put this birther thing to bed. Okay... keep it up, make fools of yourselves, no skin off me.

JQA

It's amusing to see conservatives try to turn the Constitution into a living document when they want it interpreted to their own ends and support the same Supreme Court they condemn when the court issues opinons they disagree with.

If, as some of you claim, a "natural born citizen" has to be both born of parents who are BOTH citizens AND within the confines of the U.S. then McCain would also NOT be a "natural born citizen" as he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, well outside U.S. borders.

That would also exclude many dependents/descendents of service men and woman who's children are born outside U.S. borders. Nice to see conservatives supporting the troops who protect them

Madmax1450

He was born on American territory in Panama as his parents were at Military base so he qualifies according to Supreme Court. Moron

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

And you liberal shills only take that which you want. The parents of McCain while being over seas were still Americans and born here. Even if McCain had been born on the moon he would natural born, You can not say the same of Obama in any case because one of his parent was never a citizen.

edodaniel

What is amusing is liberals like you who can't understnd that there is nothing "living" about the Constitution.

It is also amusing that you have so much trouble reading AND UNDERSTANDING what is presented to you. Should you want to exercise your brain a bit try reading again the definition by Vattel in use at the time the Constitution was written and ratified and you might notice that bit which makes McCain Constitutionally eligible to the office through parentage regardless of where he was born. Obama, the man with a Connecticut SSN despite never living in the state and that SSN fails the E-Verify, is a British citizen through his father and an Indonesian citizen through his step father and that is per school records.

Nice to see another liberal who pays lip service to supporting the military - does it hurt much?

igotacomment

Daves ... I think you owe BigUgly666 $20.00.

maryflaur

The Constitution says nothing about both parents being citizens. It simply states, in Article 2, paragraph 5, that "No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United Staes at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President"

Sam Mc

Keep trying.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

In which means that both parents must be American Citizens. Of course we have a real problem with Obama. His father could be A. Louis the German Shepard B.Frank Marshall Davis C. Obama Sr. or D. all of the above. Of course if it is Davis then Obama is guilty of a felony for pretending to be a foreign student and taking Federal money for it and that is just for starters.

maryflaur

*Did you read my comment about what the Constitution says? Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.*

edodaniel

Doesn't have to as public record shows that Vattel's book was widely used in the Constitutional Convention as well as throughout the debates for ratification and the further debates on the Bill of Rights. The definition of a natural born citizen was widely known and accepted and the founders didn't expect idiots enfranchised or not to question the definition which they clarified through the additional qualification "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" which pertained to the founders themselves who were not NATURAL BORN CITIZENS under the law although every one of them was indeed a CITIZEN.

Leonard Legg

Quit pulling my posts you liberal creep moderators. Jong you are wrong, if born outside the borders of the United States you must be born on American soil. Territories, and military bases are considered American soil by that supreme court decision.

The only leg ovomit has to stand on is if his real father is frank marshall davis as many profess. And that does him no good since he was enrolled in a muslim school in Indonesia and NO ONE was allowed to attend those schools unless they were both a muslim and a citizen of indonesia. This means he had to have denounced his American citizenship in order to obtain the indonesian citizenship as it was under british rule and dual citizenship was not allowed. So even if he was born in Hawaii and of two American citizens, he lost that when he denounced his U.S citizenship, since after that even if he became naturalized again he would still only be a citizen and not a natural born citizen. Case closed he is a criminal and probably an illegal alien and definitely a usurper to the office he sets in. Which makes him guilty of espionage, treason, and tyranny to our country. I HAVE a rope.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1472630733 Tim Ives

Send it to Obama to reduce the deficit.

freedixie

Natural born: a child not only born in the United States, but born to TWO US CITIZENS. Our founding fathers wanted to make it impossible for anyone with foreign ties to ever serve as a U.S. President.

All one has to do is to read the words of the men who were involved with the creation of our nation to know how true this is., Even a Chief Judge in the Supreme Court said so—years back.

If Obama was born in Hawaii to the father he claims, he still would not be a natural born citizen. It takes two U.S. Citizen parents and a child born in the United States for the child to be a "natural born citizen." Hawaii, as a state, would give Obama half of his credential—but the foreign father (a citizen of England- although a Kenyan) would destroy any claim to the right of Obama to hold office as a U.S. President. The Democrats and the Republicans in office at the time Obama began to run for that office---were all aware of this truth because there were five or more Democratic Party Congressional attempts to change this constitutional requirement once Obama became a Senator. Strangely, only one Congressional Republican even attempted(feeble attempt) to counter the Democrats' effort.

Thomas Jefferson advised us that "on every question of construction [talking about construction of the constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

There is an enormous difference in the Article II of the Constitution between the "citizen of the United States" clause and the Fourteenth Amendment which says all presidents must qualify as Article Ii "natural born citizens," not as fourteen Amendment "citizens of the United States." Article Ii, Section 1, Clause 5: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years. And been fourteenth Years a Resident within the United States."

According to the Constitution itself, there is a critical difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States.

To be eligible to be president as a "citizen of the United States," one had to be born before or at the adoption of the Constitution and that after the adoption of the Constittion one has to be a "natural born Citizen." Natural born citizens had to be born of parents who were citizens of the United States. One may be born in the United States, yet not be "natural born." Only if a baby's two parents are citizens is he natural born. Even the civil Rights Act of 1866 required that the child be born in the United States and "not subject to any foreign power" which could only be accomplished if the child's p[arents were U.S. "citizens." The U.S. Supreme Court in Inglish v. Sailors Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (`830) which defined our new national citizenship after July 4, 1776

Our nation's founding fathers feared wealthy European aristocracy or royalty from making their way into the American government—invading the Office Commander in Chief of the military and in the future. They saw the "Natural born Citizen" clause as a means to preserve and perpetuate the new republic and its values. They were concerned about loyalty to the American cause. They used loyalty oaths to make sure elected folks were with the patriots and not with the loyalists to the old world.(Little did they suspect that men (and women) would lie on such oaths—Communists, for example, can take such an oath AND PASS A LIE DETECTOR TEST—knowing full well they do not intend to honor any oath of loyalty to the U.S. They can do this because of their entrenched belief that anything, any word uttered—that benefits their religion of Communism--- is TRUTH.

IN THE UNITED STATES. AN ALIEN CANNOT BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS HE HAS NATURALIZED. AN ALIEN CANNOT BEGET A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES, LET ALONE A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN." AN ALIEN HAD TO BE NATURALIZED TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES IN ORDER TO BEGET A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES (WHICH IS A BABY BORN OUR OF THE UNITED STATES." IF THE BABY IS BORN WITHIN THE U.S., THEN HE BECOMES [ IF FATHERED AND MOTHERED BY U.S. CITIZENS], A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN."

THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1866 AND THE 14TH Amendment GAVE CITIZENSHIP TO TO CHILDREN BORN IN THE U.S. TO DOMICILED ALIEN PARENTS. (That has been ridiculously stretched to include anchor babies—bringing here the relatives of all children whose mama flies here, crawls here, hops here—delivers and is returned home at U.S. Taxpayers' expense —so to return later and without waiting in line, obtain full citizenship.

daves

Sailor's Snug Harbor

In the case of Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) the Supreme Court decided the question of the disposition of the estate of a man born in New York State in 1776. The Supreme Court resolved complicated questions of how citizenship had been derived during the Revolutionary War. The court found that the jus soli is so consistent in American Law as to automatically grant American citizenship to children born in New York City between the Declaration of Independence and the Landing at Kip's Bay in 1776, but not to children born in New York during the British occupation that followed.[35]

"Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth.."

Steven

Who said that no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the general public?

notislam

isn't it sickening that people with the ilk of Pelosi(the lousy putz) and Boxer & Dianne (who needs to retire) are in this ;LIE with the Islamist-liar president???

BigUgly666

Yeah, I CAN believe that liberal democrats are that stupid .... after all, they do believe that "natural born" and "native born" are the same thing.

Except for those liberals and democrats who probably think that "native born" only applies to American Indians.

JamesMaxwell

"Yeah, I CAN believe that liberal democrats are that stupid .... after all, they do believe that "natural born" and "native born" are the same thing.

Except for those liberals and democrats who probably think that "native born" only applies to American Indians."

Nice trolling BigUgly666.

BigUgly666

"Nice trolling"? Is that the only thing you can think of?

Bite Me!!!!!

JamesMaxwell

Pretending not to be a troll eh? Oldest troll trick in the book.

Steven

You should know. YOU sound more like a troll than BigUgly666.

smartgranny55

Wow, doesn't it? What about those with only 50% Indian blood? Are they still natural? (Sarcasm intended.)

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

Ask Warren(LOL)

Remington 870

Wonder why Warren hasn't made news proclaiming herself as the first native American female senator?

http://twitter.com/DustyFae StarDust Dolittle

May be she is ashame of it and rather not talk about it. Who knows really except my guess, she will follow the liars.

She's a liberal democrat....they know no shame....I'm sure she'd proclaim it if asked by the lamestream media...

Mitchina

But the well trained media will never come out and ask her - as they have done in abundance of all the NON-question questions posed to the POS POTUS. Funny, the one thing in this article that kept sticking in my craw was the description "low-information voters". What, we stopped calling them useful idiots for something more PC? To hell with that! THERE FREAKING STOOPID! They deserve the useful idiot tag.

NCBigmouth

She hasn't thought of it yet. She will now, LOL.

John A Demers

The only reason E, Warren won was because the left wing money started flowing her way and the left wing lies started and bingo she is in ,but she will be used just like the puppet in the White House.

Remington 870

The Warren woman is a liar and disrespects Native Americans. My mother was part native American and where I lived this was something to be kept a secret. Today, political fools like Warren flaunt their lies with reckless abandon. Let the Peoples Republic of Mass enjoy this charlatan.

shipsailed

My Cherokee grandmothers were not allowed to walk on the sidewalk. They were also abused and treated horribly. That does not seem to matter.

Remington 870

What enrages me is this pretend media lets the Warren liar get away with lies about her heritage. She should be telling her followers she is part negro and maybe she will get Sharpton and Jackson to certify her into their misbegotten world.

http://www.facebook.com/smichaelwilson Scott Wilson

Are you saying that Warren shouldn't be allowed to walk on the sidewalk? I don't see how that is going to help.

shipsailed

I HAVE ASKED YOU LEAVE ME ALONE. STOP FOLLOWING MY COMMENTS. YOU ARE HARASSING ME. IT IS GROWING OLD.

http://www.facebook.com/laraine.walker.37 Laraine Walker

ANOTHER FRAUD VOTING STATE....

bigD

She made the claim before she ran. Isn't that how she won?

shipsailed

Strange you should say that. I have two great grandmothers both Cherokee Indian. One has to prove it. Blacks do not have to prove it no matter how white they appear. Why is that?

http://www.facebook.com/smichaelwilson Scott Wilson

Who is making you prove it? Is it due to government reparations for what our government did to the Native Americans? Because if we're talking about reparations for descendants of slaves kept legally captive by the government, then you might have a point.

shipsailed

I am not trying to get anything. I find it strange those who are descendants of native Americans must prove they are who they are. I have made NO mention about reparations for anyone! YOU ARE. The owner of the first slave in America was black. I do not believe anyone should be a slave. WHY DO YOU ATTACK ME BECAUSE I HAVE CHEROKEE IN MY FAMILY LINE? I HAVE ASKED YOU TO LEAVE ME ALONE. YOU ARE HARASSING ME. I SHOULD BE ABLE TO BE WHO I AM, YET OUR GOVT REQUIRES THOSE WITH NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE PROVE IT. I DID NOT MAKE THAT UP. You do not understand what leave me alone means, I have asked you that over and over and those looking into this will see that.

krk

hey- then again "native americans" came across when the land mass was still connected. they "ain't truly from these parts neither Jeb". Just came on an earlier march. So THEORETICALLY they don't qualify either, so guess our only option is Anarchy. Hey , better then the frigged up government we got now. You want to see peeps reembrace capitolism and reject "sharing" Give em a day of fighting for a piece of bread or a drink. We're going to come to that anyway under our "kind" "large" government. Eventually we are going to start fighting over what is ours. You can only take and spread so far. And the spoiled entitlement libs are the ones who will be whining the loudest. " I thought we were just going to take away from those that earned it, and those annoying right winged people, that talk like my grandpa about earning things and stupid stuff ". This party isn't fun anymore. Heck by that point, might even turn em' against the billions of illegals they so want to embrace now.

pateboo

There IS hope. Election Day I went to a Popeyes for dinner after working at the polls, there was a young black girl working behind the counter complaining. She said she voted for Romney because she knows someone getting $1,100 a month just for "cranking out kids", when she's working TWO jobs and her mother who has a PHD can't even find ONE. She was saying how that's so unfair, so someone IS seeing the light. I hope that girl goes on to spread her opinion far and wide.

http://twitter.com/LDommel Linda Dommel

You should have educated her. The Gov't gives free housing,free schooling free food to become the childs parent. When Obama's transforms this country it will be communist! The Gov't will change the rules on those handout people-that's how they controll the cost-controll the people! Those kids will be TAKEN at birth by the Gov't to be raised! Just getting a head start now! Those LOAFERS will work at the job the Gov't tells them for their FOOD, if not die! etc.. Those Lower Information Voters are being suckered BUT they will take us down with them. Ancestors looked down on welfare programs because they knew where it lead! Welfare should ONLY be for those INCAPABLE mentally or physically NOT these Able bodies being suckered & taking us down!

http://wahrheitmacher.blogspot.com/ Most Rev. Gregori

Even supposedly well educated lawyers, judges and politicians are claiming that anyone born in the US is a "natural born" citizen. So, how can we blame the unwashed masses for being so ignorant? Unless we can change our schools, there will be no way to change the people's thinking. People today believe everything they learn in school because after all, the teachers know what they are talking about. the vast majority of people today do not know how to think for themselves or reason things out.

RageFury

Trained my son to think for himself. I trained him to question, argue and debate with the Lib Teachers. He was Home Schooled through Grade School, but he wanted to attend public High School. Fairly confident he will act as the voice of reason in his classes the next 4 years

MARYANN33

Peer pressure is really strong..He may leave reason and come back to it later...Fitting in is a mighty pull.....

Kait

Good for you. Just remember, he won't learn one more thing in the next four years, it'll be a cakewalk for him...so keep homeschooling him behind the scenes so his brain doesn't turn to mush.

http://www.facebook.com/mary.b.pitts.9 Mary Barry Pitts

That's because the teachers get their information from the internet.....and you know you can't put anything on the internet unless it's true!!!! (sarc)

pateboo

SNOPES has become the new Gospel according to Liberals

http://twitter.com/LDommel Linda Dommel

Anything that is 1/2 trueth is ok. It's a George Soros adventure (SNOPES)

Remington 870

Obama is a prime example of someone who can't prove US citizenship. If Obama were applying for a Department of Defense security job, he would fail the background check. And this clown holds American lives in his incompetent hands.

http://twitter.com/LDommel Linda Dommel

Democrats voters DON'T care about anything other then a GOV'T CHECK COMING! THE END (vote self interest over country)

sovereigntyofone

Well, I got all the bases covered. Both my parents were U.S. (natural born ) and one of my parents was American indian. So, my half American indian blood trumps Obama's Kenyan blood any day of the week. lol

patriotusa2

If it weren't for the race issue, these mindless Democrats would have nothing to talk about! Also what goes with the word "dare" to question the president?? Is he suppose to be above reproach since no other president before him has had that luxury! If these lemmings want to follow this guy off a cliff, so be it, but the rest of us do not have to follow.

JamesMaxwell

"If it weren't for the race issue, these mindless Democrats would have nothing to talk about!"

Great trolling patriot.

patriotusa2

Thank you.

edodaniel

They aren't and we wish you wouldn't.

Just out of curiosity since you quote others in every post - have YOU ever had an original thought? Just keep telling yourself "I think I can! I think I can! I think I can" and you might surprise yourself and all of us too.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

Of course the real reason behind being naturally born was fealty to this nation and what it stands for and having no foreign ties that would prevent that. Of course with Obama we not only have a person that has no real idea of who his father really was(including Louis the German Shepard , Davis or Obama Sr.) but, no loyalty to our way of life, morals, or ethics. In all ways of not only birth but acting he is truly a foreigner.

JamesMaxwell

As always great trolling jong. You're a top competitor.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

And you still have not brought any facts along with your homosexual baggage.

JamesMaxwell

There's that jong trolling I knew you were capable of. Well done.

http://pulse.yahoo.com/_NLORN6B3ZNGCAJTFHWWFUUEY4Q jong

Since you do not have argument of any kind consider your self reported. Look for a new "identity" although it will be easy to see through.

Steven

Accusing EVERYONE of trolling is a sure sign of a troll. Note: I have accused YOU of trolling several times, but no one else in this thread.

Sam Mc

That's why he thinks there are 57 states and that Hawaii is Asian and couldn't pass a grade nine math exam. Not a clue. Didn't attend school in the US and toked his way through college wherever it was he actually attended.

Leonard Legg

Exactly he is for sure a dedicated muslim and ignorant of this country 57 states huh Funny, that is the divisions within the muslim nation if you can define their private hell as such.

wvbh17

@patriotusa2:disqus I think you meant "but the rest of us are NOT going to follow,, sure hope so anyway

VanceJ

Talk about brain dead.!!! LOL

Tzione

They just don't 'get-it" that we don't LIE like libs do.We say what we mean & mean what we say.IF we "didn't like O because he was black"... 1) He'd have to BE black! 2)WE wouldn't have supported AND been the FIRST to support: Alan Keyes Condoleesa Rice Colin Powell Herman Cain Alan West and now,Dr. Benjamin Carson 3) IF IT WERE TRUE,we'd SAY that was why we don't like him,(as a very "few" do). IF they had an OUNCE of 'gray matter"... THEY would know that Bill Clinton was NOT the "first black President

JamesMaxwell

"They just don't 'get-it" that we don't LIE like libs do."

Hmm playing the scatterbrained poor-typist troll huh? Well done.

Centurian2010

Probably a parody, however, I have spoken to many liberals in Los Angeles who feel this way. Scary that they vote and now you know why our state is so messed up.

JamesMaxwell

Basic supportive trolling. Well done centurian2010, nice and subtle.

Macranthunter

James, by strict definition, YOU are the troll.

martha chandler

California sounds like a scary place.

edgineer

Not a parody. For proof, just look at who is in the White House.

http://www.facebook.com/aemoreira81 Adam Moreira

I'd really like to be presented with anyone who actually buys that argument---I can't even get it past the laugh test. As for who penned it, I think that it's someone who is trolling.

efred1

I would guess that over 70% of the time, Snopes is wrong; almost everything I've researched from them that claims a liberal statement or disputes a conservative statement is wrong.

For example, I looked through a great deal of the emails from East Anglia, and what Snopes said was completely wrong; they were trying to fudge the records to fit their bias.

http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Orendorff/1398682199 John Orendorff

The problem is, as Steven Colbert said, is that, "Truth has a liberal bias."

Macranthunter

Sad. Very sad.

navigato

You did understand that Colbert was being ironic in that statement, did you not?

Macranthunter

Snopes was overrun by left leaning students some time ago. I've actually gone back to older articles I commonly used as references to find them updated and have the truth meter moved to fit new political leanings. Snopes is a sad example of the new trend of politics before evidence.

Howard Roark

Correct. Snopes is very liberal. Truth or Fiction honestly tries to get at the truth. They are definitely not conservative, which is OK.

Flayer

In an article on an online British journal discussing our 2nd Amendment right, one hapless commenter posted: "The fact that the 2nd Amendment is called an 'amendment' obviously shows that it is only an afterthought." I'm still chuckling about that!

LArry

Anyone who does not agree with right wing nut cases is low information moochers parasites. So what else is new that yiu think this is not a parody or satire. That would take intelligence. I bet y think the Onion is all true and writtennbynthose low info dopers. You guys having a slow Obama bash day. How is that impeachment stuff working out. Orly will be victorious 2/21 And Sheriff Joe will be there to arrest rHe great illegal and his fat, dumb, ugly gay wife. N ext the wicked witch. Then Romney will be anointed. It's all true. I read it on the Internet.

Madmax1450

Good Grief another ignorant comment by a liberal wacko moron that is crazier than a syphilitic suicide bomber with mad-cow disease.

Edward53

Then you do agree that Moochie the Wookie is a fat, foul smelling, wide azzed transvestite?

Macranthunter

Snopes is dead. It has been called out by the media - left and right - as being infiltrated and overrun by politically motivated editors. It is no longer credible on any level. When Politico calls Snopes unreliable, you know they have a problem.

Leonard Legg

Snopes is a man and wife, and they are muslim. Go figure huh.

LArry

How's that natural born stuff working out for you. You know Orly is gonna triumph next week but really every judge turned it down. Those poison darts , I know. but if Orly wins, y all will. E in those FEMA interment camps. Can't wait to come visit. Got your Rf micro chip yet. That was last years sure to happen. Got mine.

LadyBlaze

The reason has to do wity Maritime law as each person born need to be "birthed" in water.

This video will explain it all and I guarantee you're not going to like it.

P.S. The Supreme Court of the United States does not state whether the Orly Taitz case was granted or denied, no answer yet, NO TREASON YET by the justices of the Supreme Court. So let’s pray for their WISDOM.

Average response of a democrat as the vast majority of them are of a lessor intelligence than most others . Uneducated and raised by parents that are no smarter . Most live in poverty or near poverty and have not much common sense since all their peers are as mentally deficient as they are . You can not teach a person to be intelligent . They must be born without brain defects , unlike most democrats .

What the heck . Go for it Dem ! You get a hold of all the other Dems out there and demand of congress to make C Sections a natural birth . I am sure Nobama is thinking the same thing since he is a Jeanyus.

singer23

Liberalism and Communism are disease's of the intellect!

good160

me think's that lib's are perv's.

http://www.facebook.com/benfaust8778 Ben Faust

Common modern-day illiteracy. Thinking "natural born" means the same thing as "naturally born" is a "natural" result of not knowing how to correctly speak the English language.

http://www.facebook.com/charles.durrenberger Charles Durrenberger

Snopes has already been proven to be useless, a bunch of Liberal hacks whose ratio of bias is clearly evident to anyone with as much as 25% intellectual capacity! To attribute anything of value to them (Snopes) - and near the beginning of this article too - shows a willingness to pander, a cowardice no longer needed. Whether the letter is real or faked does address the necessity to examine both the actual words as written [in Laws], and the intent of those words as written in Laws. Learn more at http://blackmarketliberty.com

The Old Man

I am so tired of the Democrats or anyone trying to re-define the meaning of the constitution. It is what is ... and there is no difference in what was meant back then as compared to what it means today.... the words are just being twisted to suit their agendas. The men that created the constitution were brilliant and we are now dealing with idiots trying to destroy it.

TxGCB

They did C- sections thousands of years ago. Bad argument.

MARYANN33

This IS a democrat for you....Absolutely...Low information voters...There ought to be a law...Test of basic intelligence to vote....please.....Benghazi is enough to remove and prosecute this president...What holds that up????

SouthernPatriot

Democrats re-elected Rep. Jefferson, Democrat, New Orleans after he was indicted for getting the National Guard from rescuing people during Katrina to escort him to his home that he could retrieve a cache of cash. A special election had to be called when Rep. Jefferson was in prison and unable to serve, what he was paid to do. (By the way, Jefferson continues to receive his retirement and government funds paid for by us all while in prison).

Democrats appear to have little or no values, except the value to kill unborn, near born, being born, and born children who survive the attempts at murdering him/her. Democrats have put on a pedestal Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. while completely dishonoring his words that one should "not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Long/1450125296 Roger Long

In the context of the letter, what about children born to a woman who has had artificial insemination to have a child. Who was the father? It opens a whole new can of worms.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

The purpose of limiting the POTUS to a person born of citizen parents was to prevent foreign influence. A sperm cell can't influence the child so I see no issue.

Benito Camarillo

Amazing how quick some are to resort to name calling. Those that reason just being born in the US (or US Territory) makes you "natural born" seem to miss the point that there was and is a valid reason for differentiating between "Citizen" and "Natural Born Citizen". If, it were just being born in the US, then we could have situations where a Foreign Citizen brings his pregnant foreign citizen wife into the US. When the baby is born, under the assumption it is then automatically a "natural born citizen", it would then have all the rights and privileges of a US Citizen, including the right to run for and hold the office of President....or to bring the rest of the family into the US and collect welfare, unemployment, tax benefits, free health care, food stamps.........oh....wait a minute.....that is what is happening........ "anchor babies", Indonesian father.......non-vetting by States officers charged with the responsibility of verifying the eligibility of those seeking office........ never mind...... welcome to hell.

Dasrge

Exactly!! Right on target! But pointing this out to a liberal sycophant is just pi$$ing in the wind. You're automatically labeled a racist...even though this scumbag has admitted to a Kenyan being his father, has used a stolen social security number, posted a forged birth certificate to the American public (proven by literally hundreds of computer experts, including the man that was instrumental in the design of the Adobe program that was used to create the forgery), has a fake selective service document and presented financial aid requests to Occidental College showing that he was asking for financial aid as a foreign student. The proof that is out there RIGHT NOW could prosecute obubba to the fullest extent of the law, if there was a judge out there that had the gonads to see the case through. But every judge out there is one of the following: a liberal sycophant, doesn't want to be considered a racist, has been scared out of his wits, doesn't want to be the first to prosecute a " black president" for perpetrating the biggest fraud in our nations history, or doesn't want to paint a target on himself or his family for the reprisals and assassination attempts that would most certainly come as a result of prosecuting this POS fake in chief.

glock 19 fan

The story came originally from a freshman government class where one student ranted about "natural born" disqualifying some eminently qualified people. The rant ended with the "natural born" vs. "C-section" question and most of the class saw nothing wrong with the question. I told my doctor about it and he almost fell from his chair laughing.

http://www.facebook.com/maxwell.friedlander Maxwell Friedlander

If this letter isn't a hoax, it shows you how stupid & moronic Democrats are.

LUCKYME

LIBERAL DUMBOCRATS ARE THE MOST USELESS PEOPLE AND FIRST CLAS LIARS

jwright673

I saw this before and the statment was reportedly made by a female student at Purdue. With the liberal education kdis are getting today, I believe it is probably true.

http://www.facebook.com/pmcconathy1 Phil McConathy

I have no problem believing this letter was written by a true low information Democrat voter. They are truly very ignorant people who have little or no common sense.

Korean_Vet

Liberals also believe--"That if you weren't hatched from an "American Ostrich Egg"--then that's a 'natural-born child'-! But if you study 'Early American History'-- in the days prior to & after the American Revolution--You'll Find that a 'Great Amount of Important Laws' were placed on "Laws of Inheritance"! Why-? Because--in those days, if you "inherited a Farm--from your Father or Uncle"--you have a Job, by which you can make a "Living"-! But even--If you "Inherited a 'Feather-Bed'--this meant, "More Comfort in Winter-time"-! But if you're a young woman, & you 'Inherited a piece of Jewelry'--you had something of "Precious Beauty" to wear-! But once, the new American Republic became a fact--If your parents signed up as "Declared Citizens of the United States"--(Sealed by an "Oath of Allegiance" to the new Nation-! This U.S. Citizenship became a 'Untangible valuable prize'--similiar to a 'Honorable Family Surname' that was noted throughout the Land-! These U.S. Citizenships became a new possession--& the Forefathers spent many days--considering what they must 'Write for Rules' concerning Public Office Elections-! Many of these American Colonials had been born in these regions--years before the American Revolution occurred-! To give you the "Right Idea"--Ben Franklin's Son was born in America & was appointed by the "King" to become the British Governor of New Jersey-! But his "Allegiance stayed with the British Empire--& he left America to finally live in England--& he died there-! His name was "William Franklin" & Ben Franklin "Dis-owned" his son & never saw his Son again--except for one time, when he went to England as a official ambassador, their encounter was brief & "Strained"-! (We certainly wouldn't have "Legalized" his Son--to ever run as U.S. President--even though, he was Ben Franklin's Son--his Father never "forgave him" as a "Tory"-! You now see--'how' a National "Conflict of Interest"--got in here, even if a Father has "Allegiance" to the USA-! Got more Stupid Questions-? U.S.Citizenship Rights--by "INHERITANCE"-! If you have 2 parents, who are "Legally Married", & both have U.S. Citizenships, & they have a "Legally-Born Heir"--(This is a "Natural-Born Citizen" of the United States-!) (He or She) is a "Natural-Born Heir" who is entitled to "Inherit" every-right of Citizenship--that these (U.S. Parents have in their "Possession"-!) Parents that "own & possess" U.S. Citizenships have 'every-right' to pass "by Inheritance"--these 'Citizenship-Rights' to their Children--without any further Questions-! These "Natural-Born Heirs" have rights to anything their parents owned-! A "Naturalized Citizen" is one, who is "Adopted"--(By the "Incorporated U.S.Govt.)--after passing certain requirements-! An "Adopted" child is Not a "Natural-Born" Citizen-! One 'mature-parent' who is a U.S. Citizen--can give their "Child"--a U.S. Citizenship- Right--but not a "Natural-Born Citizenship"-! If a "Legal Marriage" is to a foreign-born person--this bars the "Natural-Born Citizen" Status-! An "Adopted" child--who is born in a foreign-country, isn't a "Natural-Born" Citizen-! Where '"Two Illegals--not Natives", "Drop" an "Anchor-Baby" within the U.S. Border-- "They illegally try to force 'Uncle Sam' into a "State of Bigamy"--which is "Forbidden by U.S. Laws"--even for the "Incorporated U.S. Government"-! (Imagine 10,000 "Illegal- Wives"-!) They try to qualify "Uncle Sam" as a "U.S. Citizen-Husband" for all of these wives-! Most women already have husbands--("That's Bigamy" & it's "Illegal by Law")

Albert Maslar

Low information voters cannot be changed as they are basically not interested in anything but their own status quo. Arguments mean nothing to them. They want what they want when they want, how they want, as long as someone else pays.

bobmann101

No 1 Obama is NOT black. No 2 I always thought a natural born person was a person who was born naturally.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Paul-Smith/100002359397419 Paul Smith

It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are stupid that to say something and prove them right.

bobmann101

I have no problem with people thinking I am stupid. I do not care what people think about me. I care what I think about me.

sunnyblues

I once heard a high school student wonder why the Founders wrote that "we had the right to bear arms" thinking that meant to go sleeveless. I kid you not. America is in deep, deep trouble. Our forefather's would not believe the ignorance that exhibits itself in America today. It is shameful, humiliating, and tragic. Can you for a moment imagine the citizens of this country excelling in reading, writing and arithmetic? You know. The basics. There is no way that the kind of stupidity we see in our society today would have taken root to the extent it has. Like I said, tragic.

haroldson

I don't care what any one thinks but Obama has no right to be in the white house. he is not an American citizen

robarsan

What next? This is the most nonsensical statement made by liberals thus far. I'lll be waiting to hear this one over the airways...spare me the stupidity!

mudguy1

If one believes that one being born by caesarian makes one not natural born, then using a sperm bank and artificial insemination are not natural born.

Brightmeadows

It's not dissimilar to equating "to protect the general welfare" with "keep my welfare benefits"

rchguns

I find Snopes to be a useful resource but very questionable motives. If they didn't have a horse in the game I would believe them a lot more. When it comes down to dollars and cents their loyalty belongs the social liberals and progressives.

I don't believe that being delivered by cesareans section could be used as a determining factor as to eligibility to run for president. However who your parents are and where you were born are definitely determining factors.If both parents are not American citizens you are not eligible. Does that ring a bell.

jvb5058

Liberals DO take liberties with their word play....we've seen it time and again. And liberals seem to over overwhelmingly believe it's THAT ability that makes them superior in intellect compared to everyone else in the world. If only liberals could hear all the laughing that goes behind their backs they'd be slower to claim they're smarter.

Dasrge

Your right JVB. This is another example of the Bill Clinton Syndrome when he was impeached. "It all depends on what your definition of 'is' is". These idiots run rampant due to the leftist indoctrination centers producing more and more of these non thinking, intellectually challenged morons. It's sad in a way, BUT, very dangerous in another.

http://twitter.com/knussel Babsan

Another sad statement from a totally stupid person

Brabado

With Democrats/Progressives/Stealth Communists & Liberals minds, nothing ever changes: Either they are arguing stupid baseless issues, or they are creating new ones... Can't believe there are so many of them, sorrounding us: like Zombies...

NCBigmouth

I think this was written by a Nancy Pelosi type...a left winged ding bat!

wizzid0

"General welfare"? Don't they make enough money already?

Pohknee

The liberals know that Odumbo is not qualified to be president and this is a piss poor attempt to marginalize or indicate that the criteria should be changed--why? because they know they muffed up.

Steven Iverson

Another prime example of how great a job our Public School system is doing... #NOT

tionico

Funny, when Mc Cain was running for pres back then. the issue of "natural born citizen" came up, as it was well known he was born in Panama. He was formally "examined", submitted documents he was born of two US citizen parents on a military base in Panama.. thus "natural born" under the intended meaning of the COnstitution. No one ever questioned the rightness of "investigating" his birth status.

Now, along come the kinyun, and any attempt to raise the issue has been met with scorn, threats, bullying, ridicule lawsuits..... makes me sorta think someone's got two things: an agenda, and something to hide. Rigged, or what?

sgtshel

Now I have to ask the question...If a person was born without a set of b-lls....can he still be POTUS? Just askin'. (Oh other than liar b-lls)

http://www.facebook.com/barbjeanpatton Barb Patton

How very pathetic to think that they want to split hairs like this... People that slobber and allow themselves to dribble down the legs over this man need to go to have their heads read...

ONLYJB1

"Natural born citizen" means one thing and one thing ONLY! A child born by 2 citizens of the United States. Both parents MUST citizens. I also believe they must be born within the borders of our nation. Now, with this in mind, kingO does not pass this litmus test. His stated father was a citizen of Kenya! His mother, who knows, she may have given up her citizenship! So, really, kingO does not pass this litmus test of OUR Constitution, But, we all know how he feels about this piece of parchment!

http://www.facebook.com/chuck.tilley2 Chuck Tilley

So what does that mean ? So ,now your not a American?

sovereigntyofone

The person that wrote that letter really needs to donate his/her body to medical science so they can figure out how you can have a human walking around alive without a brain. My gosh, where has this person been living, under a rock or going to a liberal college to get educated. The words " Natural born citizen " has nothing to do with the " act " of birth. No wonder these idot liberals get suckered into voting for people like Obama. God help us if there is more than one of this peron walking around and allowed to vote.

http://twitter.com/DGuardian2 D. Guardian

Despite everything, the low info's rule. They got mao-mama re-elected. I wouldn't be surprised if they elect him again in 2016 even "tho" the constitution forbids it. What the low info's want, the low info's get. Republicans who??

redneck63625

It's difficult to distinguish between the babblings of "Democrats," and parodies by those of us who are knowledgeable about how stupid and treasonous the former are...

http://www.facebook.com/rwyatthaines Raeman Haines

Hmm , someone has had way to much Koolaid

USA Lover

Now this is just silly a C section has nothing to do with anything, right now we have a president that is a natural born spawn of satan so you C it doesn't matter

CaptTurbo

Maybe so, but apparently, if you were dropped out of a camel's butt in Kenya, you can.

Othello

Sounds about what a liberal would say.

WgTaylor

What an idiot ! unbelievable

jsmithcsa

While in the absence of information I consider this parody, too, reality is not far off from this.

My local paper ran a letter to the editor during the Obamacare debate that told us that if Obamacare wasn't passed, military would lose all health benefits. It's hard to guess what the democrats and other ignoramuses will lie about, even in print.

shipsailed

Problem is the President is HALF WHITE...HE IS NO MORE BLACK THAN HE IS WHITE. That is all we hear, about his being black. It was not just blacks that elected him. He refuses to be the president of all the people, just those who voted for him. He does not care what the people want, it is all about what he wants. He is ashamed he is white, blacks seem to hate whites more and more. Why?